General Photography Competition #183

[SlickHolden]

SlickHolden
Old moon
9th April 2009
Sunbury
Nokia N95 8.

[drakkie]

Can anyone spare a longer lens?? 400mm would do it

Tele-converter as temporary, cheaper solution ?

[Rasmus]

Pat, Slick, I'll see your airplane and moon, and raise you a clock.

[Rasmus]

Rasmus
Big Ben
04/04/2009
London
Canon 40D, Canon EFS 17-55 f/2.8 IS

[basman007]

Tele-converter as temporary, cheaper solution ?

that will get me about 300mm. But I want something like 400+tele=560mm

[#1 Mustang Fan]

Be wary of tele converters. Depending on what size your thinking of getting they can play with your image quality - Sharpness and contrast and the main things that are affected. I have a 2x and it doesn't get out very often because of this. and the auto focus is always quite slow going through a teleconverter, remember when buying to check mounts etc because if they don't match it might not work at all. They also cause you to lose a stop, two stops with mine (because its 2x) when using one on your camera.

They are the cheap version of a larger focal but you do lose a few things with it. It'd pay to use it with your best glass and one with a very small aperture.

[superwaxer]

Be wary of tele converters. Depending on what size your thinking of getting they can play with your image quality - Sharpness and contrast and the main things that are affected. I have a 2x and it doesn't get out very often because of this. and the auto focus is always quite slow going through a teleconverter, remember when buying to check mounts etc because if they don't match it might not work at all. They also cause you to lose a stop, two stops with mine (because its 2x) when using one on your camera.

They are the cheap version of a larger focal but you do lose a few things with it. It'd pay to use it with your best glass and one with a very small aperture.

I agree. I bought an el-cheapo tele-converter once, played around with it for about 20 seconds and then sent it back. If you use canon lenses, buy a canon tele-converter or nothing at all.

Another thing I think I should mention. Moving up from 200mm to 400mm is quite noticable, however, 400mm to 600mm is hardly worth it. I have a 400D (1.6 focal length multiplier) and a Sigma 500mm. So in other words, I actually have a 800mm lens. To be honest, every mm counts, but the last 300mm or so doesnt really make much of a difference. It all up to you, but if I was you Basman, Id get the 400mm and stick with it. Whatever floats your boat bro...

[Rasmus]

I agree - to a certain extent.

I've been using a Canon 1.4x extender on my 70-200 f/2.8, and I do think of it as an option unless A3+ sized prints are needed. It does take a small toll on the sharpness. Also, with the loss of one stop, I'm looking at f/4.0 max with a more realistic f/5.6 shooting max. Will you be able to do 1/125th at 448mm instead of 1/500th at 320mm? AF is not quite as fast, but I've only ever experienced problems once when I was shooting rally cars coming at me at 50-80mph.

The 2.0x extender I would only consider using on the 300 f/2.8. The 1.4x can be used on less sharp glass, but only in a pinch, and only if you've still got decent quality glass. With Canon I wouldn't bother using them on anything but L - and even then try not to.

[#1 Mustang Fan]

#1 mustang fan
Roadside
Week ago
Pentax MZ S



This shot was taken using a a b/w film then eventually after I got my hands on a high quality scanner, scanned then processed a bit in PS. Its a hell of a lot more inconvenient doing it like this rather than using a digital camera but film is still a very fun process and helps you understand some fundamentals. But scanning is slow and unreliable. Do not recommend.

I can get exif if wanted, I'm lucky my camera imprints it to my negatives.

[basman007]

I agree. I bought an el-cheapo tele-converter once, played around with it for about 20 seconds and then sent it back. If you use canon lenses, buy a canon tele-converter or nothing at all.

Another thing I think I should mention. Moving up from 200mm to 400mm is quite noticable, however, 400mm to 600mm is hardly worth it. I have a 400D (1.6 focal length multiplier) and a Sigma 500mm. So in other words, I actually have a 800mm lens. To be honest, every mm counts, but the last 300mm or so doesnt really make much of a difference. It all up to you, but if I was you Basman, Id get the 400mm and stick with it. Whatever floats your boat bro...

I was thinking 400mm F5.6L. To me that's the only affordable long range lens in the Canon supertele lineup. The reason for wanting to move up from 200mm are the birds. Small or not, they usually tend to keep a big distance between them and the people. I don't have experience with a 400mm lens, but I think it's not enough for the small birds. That chaffinch I shot was pure luck, that only happens once per year. So that's why I was thinking to add a 1.4 tc to that lens. Allthough I'm not even sure of that's enough for the bigger wildlife in my area..
From what I've read the 400mm prime is a really sharp lens and can take the 1.4 well. And allthough the F-number gets quite high, AF works good.
I'd love to get my hands on another supertelelens, but that's a few thousand euros to 10k for the 800mm. Absolutely impossible to afford for a hobbyist like me.

Anyway, those are just my thoughts. I still have to save up alot of pennies before I'll put them in reality

[zeppelin]

Hi guys, I am "back". Sorry, I was busy/away and didn't get a chance to go on my computer practically. We'll just pretend that this past week didn't exist. I'll get the voting up tonight.

[SlickHolden]

Pat, Slick, I'll see your airplane and moon, and raise you a clock.

What perfect "Timing"